3/21/2014

The City of Oakland has agreed to pay Scott Olsen $4.5 million to compensate him for devastating brain injuries he suffered when an Oakland Police officer shot him in the head with a “less lethal” munition on October 25, 2011, during a demonstration in support of Occupy Oakland. The lead filled “bean bag” round, fired from a 12 gauge shotgun, shattered Mr. Olsen’s skull and permanently destroyed part of his brain. The settlement in Olsen v. City of Oakland, 3:12-cv-06333, is pending final approval by the Oakland City Council. Mr. Olsen was represented by attorneys Jim Chanin, Rachel Lederman, and Julie Houk.

“After serving two tours of duty as a United States Marine in Iraq, Scott Olsen could never have imagined that he would be shot in the head by an Oakland Police officer while he was peacefully exercising his First Amendment rights in support of the budding “Occupy” economic justice movement,” said Rachel Lederman. “Scott was 24 years old when the shooting and ensuing brain damage robbed him of what had been a promising career as a computer network and systems administrator.”

Jim Chanin said, “There was no dispute that Scott Olsen never posed a threat and was protesting peacefully. He was shot because OPD commanders decided to simultaneously use chemical agents to disperse the demonstrators and have officers shoot impact munitions at anyone who might be throwing something — even though this violated their own written policies. The obviously foreseeable result was that the officers shot people who were desperately trying to flee the scene, including Mr. Olsen.”

Mr. Olsen had only been at the demonstration for a matter of minutes before OPD commanders gave the order to use munitions on the assembled crowd. He was shot 18 seconds later. Lederman explained, “The commanders knew the teargas and flashbangs would cause people to panic and run, yet they elected to shoot SIM into the densely packed crowd and it is only a matter of luck that more people weren’t injured as severely as Scott Olsen or killed. If the police had done sufficient planning for the demonstration and followed their own Crowd Control Policy, the use of weapons could have entirely been avoided. After all, no other Bay Area city responded to Occupy with SIM or teargas and no other city has incurred the enormous costs that the people of Oakland have as a result.” “The cost is not only money,” added Olsen. “If people can’t speak out without fear of being shot we don’t really have democracy.”

After being shot, Mr. Olsen lay on the pavement critically injured and bleeding from the head, clearly visible very close to the line of police officers. When concerned protesters ran to his aid, OPD Officer Robert Roche threw a flashbang-like CS Blast grenade into their midst, causing them to scatter. The grenade exploded close enough to Mr. Olsen to burn his shoulder as he lay helpless. Civilians re-approached and persisted in carrying Mr. Olsen to safety, screaming for medical aid – but no law enforcement personnel responded or summoned medical attention even though their own policy requires them to provide medical aid to anyone hit with a SIM.

In an independent investigation commissioned by the City, former Baltimore Police Chief Tom Frazier found that “the fact that no law enforcement officer, supervisor, or commander observed the person falling down or prostrate in the street during the confrontation was unsettling and not believable.”

Mr. Olsen said that he is unable to return to his high tech career. “In the hospital, I had to learn how to talk all over again. Part of my brain isn’t working anymore. It’s not like something I really want to talk about all the time. I relive it every day.“

“This is the same police department that shot longshoremen and protesters with so-called less lethal munitions during a peaceful antiwar picket at the Port of Oakland in 2003,” explained Chanin. “At that time, the City and Police agreed to stop these practices and adopted a model policy for constitutional policing of demonstrations.” “But as soon as they had some more large protests,” said Lederman, “OPD scrapped that agreement and repeated the same mistakes. Scott Olsen’s is the worst of the injuries that resulted from that and I wish I could say it will be the last but that remains to be seen.”

In July, 2013, the Oakland City Council approved a $1,170,000 settlement in a civil rights lawsuit brought by Rachel Lederman, Jim Chanin, and other attorneys on behalf of journalist Scott Campbell and 11 other persons, Campbell et al v. City of Oakland, 3:11-cv-5498. A separate lawsuit, Sabeghi v. City of Oakland, 3:12-cv-6057, was resolved in December, 2013, for $645,000.

As part of the Campbell settlement and a companion $1,025,000 settlement in Spalding v. City of Oakland, 3:11-cv-2867, regarding unlawful mass arrests of protesters, the City and OPD again agreed to abide by the negotiated Crowd Control Policy and gave U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson the power to enforce compliance with the policy for up to seven years.

However, according to Lederman, “OPD has refused to get rid of so-called “less lethal” weapons such as CS Blast grenades and lead shot filled beanbags, and until they do so, it is only a matter of time before we see another tragedy.”

The Store Of Inspiration - Buddy Huggins Store

Harmony Yoga & Wellness Center

Irina Isayeva is Buddy's Yoga Teacher

Three Principles Movies

Discovery of the Three Principles, Learning more about the Three Principles of Mind, Consciousness and Thought.

Privacy Policy

This privacy policy details the efforts we take to protect your information. We’re committed to protecting your information. We will only ask you to provide it as a means of identifying you, and it will only be used in the ways specified by this privacy policy. This policy may undergo subtle changes when we update this page. You should periodically check this page to see if we’ve recently altered the policy.
Security
We’re dedicated to securing your information to keep you safe. We have added suitable electronic, physical and managerial safeguards to protect the information that we collect from the Web.
How We Use Cookies
A cookie is a small file that needs permission to be added to your computer’s hard drive. After you agree, the cookie is added and it assists with Web traffic as well as letting you know when you visit a particular site. Cookies allow Web applications to personalize your experience by tailoring themselves to the things you like and the things you don’t. Cookies gather and maintain information about you and the pages you visit, so we can keep track of our Web traffic. This allows us to make the necessary adjustments to keep the site relevant. Cookies never give us access to your personal information or access to your computer. Most Web browsers automatically allow cookies to access your hard drive, but you can turn cookies off in your settings. However, taking this step will adversely affect your Web surfing experience. Cookies are also used to show you our ads when you visit various websites. You can opt out of Google’s cookies via this link.
Third-party vendors such as Google use cookies to tailor ads to you based upon the sites you visit. Google also uses the double-click cookie to allow itself and its partners to send you custom ads based upon your visits to this and other sites. The following link allows you to opt out of the double-click cookie-based ads.
Links to Other Sites
Our site contains links to other sites to help you more easily navigate the Web. However, clicking these links takes you away from our site to sites where our privacy policy is no longer enforced. We have no jurisdiction over the other websites and assume no responsibility for the information they collect.

Disclaimer

Disclaimer
In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Intersticle.com has adopted the following policy concerning copyright infringement. For claimed infringement notifications, please contact us.
Copyright Policy
Anyone who alleges a violation of his or her intellectual property must submit the following documentation to the company:
* The electronic or physical signature of an authorized representative for the owner of the allegedly infringed material.
* An identification of any and all works that have allegedly been infringed, identification of the allegedly infringed material, and its location on the company’s website. The identification must be specific as to the exact location of the material that the owner wishes to see removed.
* Contact information of the party contacting the company. This includes name, phone number, mailing address and email address.
* A statement that the contacting party has a good-faith belief that the alleged infringed material is unauthorized by the owner of the copyright, the agent or the law.
* A statement that the information provided in the complaint is true and accurate and that the agent contacting the company is authorized to do so under the penalty of perjury.
After we receive the infringement notification, our policy is to immediately remove the infringed material or deny access to it.